Why did God create us?

The question was asked of the evangelical Christian participants on another blog: why did God create us? In answering this question, I’m going to make two assumptions about theology that are held by virtually all evangelical Christians, namely (1) that God created the universe out of nothing, and (2) that at the time of creation, God had foreknowledge of the entry of sin, pain, and suffering into the world and the necessity of the Atonement.
To begin with, I have to talk about one answer that evangelicals often give that I’m not so fond of, and that is . . .

TO GLORIFY GOD

God created us for the express purpose of bringing glory to himself.
This answer sounds great to us evangelicals because we already love God and know that he has done wonderful things for us and glorifying God amazes us. However, I think that we  tend to get so caught up in the mystery of holiness that we forget how underwhelming this answer is to outsiders. God created us, with our existence being entirely dependent on his will, so that he could glorify himself? Is he narcissistic or just insecure?
That isn’t to say that I don’t think that glory is connected to our purpose in creation, because I do. Isaiah 43:7 says that God created the covenant nation of Israel for his glory. Revelation 4:11 says that God is worthy of glory because he created us through his will. I think that our creation does bring glory to God. However, I don’t think this was God’s primary purpose in creating us.
My own answer to the question?
God created us because he loves us and it pleased him to do so.
God did not create us because he was lonely and he needed our companionship, though he may have wanted it. The Father, the Son and the Spirit already had perfect companionship with each other. God did not create us because of some divine law of the universe that he is subject to that mandates creation. He did not have to create us. He did it because he wanted to, because the possibility of our existence was pleasing to him.
I think that my own reasons for choosing to have a child were similar. I was not lonely when Paul and I began trying for children; I had companionship and love through Paul and my other family and friends. I don’t believe that the commandment in Genesis 1:28 to “be fruitful and increase in number” means that every married couple needs to try to have children if they are able, so I did not feel like I was automatically under some divine imperative to have children. The main reason that I chose to have children is because the thought of having children to love pleased me.
Then we go back to pain and suffering. God created us knowing that there would be pain and suffering in the world. Likewise, when I decided to try for children, I accepted the fact that my child would go through her own pain and suffering in life, and because of her health problems, this pain and suffering has come sooner rather than later. It hurt me to turn my daughter over for surgery twice before she was fifteen months old. The first time I put her in the surgeon’s arms, I went back to the surgery waiting room at Primary Children’s Hospital and I cried.
But, if I could go back in time and know in advance about the suffering she would go through and be given the option of not having her, I would still choose to have her. I think life is worth the pain.
Then there’s God’s own pain. God knew when he created us that the Atonement would be necessary, yet he still chose to go through with it so that he could make us into new humans. Likewise, I knew that pregnancy and childbirth were going to be painful—and let me state for the record that I am not one of those women who gushes about how wonderful pregnancy is. I know that such women exist, and I am in awe of them, but I am not one of them. Still, I chose to go through with it all so that I could make a new human. My daughter’s life was worth my pain.
This is an entry that I wrote in my journal on Wednesday, November 2, 2005:
So . . . I found out on Saturday that I’m pregnant. Scary.
So much has raced through my mind since then. I worry about the safety of the baby. I worry about surviving pregnancy and giving birth.
But to my unborn son or daughter . . . know that I will love you until the end of time.
[For the record, that's the entire journal entry for that day; the ellipses are actually in the text. That's how I write.]
God created us because he loved us and because the thought of our existence was pleasing to him. We bring glory to God when we live out the purpose of our creation by loving God back.

Comments

Why did God create us? — 52 Comments

  1. As a former Mormon and current follower of Jesus who does not identify with any particular brand of Christianity (I usually call myself a non-religious follower of Jesus), I fully agree with you that God’s motive for creating us was love. In fact, 1 John 4:8 defines God as love. It must be pretty amazing love too, considering that he created us with the full knowledge that we would choose against him and planned all along to suffer on the cross for our redemption. It’s pretty unfathomable to think that an all-powerful, all-knowing being would go to the lengths he has for us.
  2. Theologian Jeffries,
    What is your take–as an evangelical theologian–on the historicity of the first three chapters of Genesis, as well as the scientific accuracy of the biblical texts in describing creation?
    Other questions to follow. :)
    Best wishes,
    TYD
  3. Biblical Scholar TYD,
    What is your take–as an evangelical theologian–on the historicity of the first three chapters of Genesis, as well as the scientific accuracy of the biblical texts in describing creation?
    As a sometime observer of evangelical issues I would suggest that theologian Jeffries go with evangelical John Walton on this one, your question is a category error. The Genesis accounts were not meant to be a scientific account of anything, indeed cannot be since they predate anything that one might reasonably call “science.” Hence they can be neither accurate nor inaccurate science.
  4. David, I think TYD was being ironic.
    Good post. I think more time needs to be spent on these sorts of personal connections with the divine. The best Evangelical literature I’ve read does this.
  5. Jack: I have to agree with you that the responses that I’ve most often heard from many evangelicals (namely, because God was lonely, or as a way of glorifying himself) aren’t very satisfying.
    But I like your answer, and I’m pretty much in agreement. I think it goes to the very nature of God. The first thing we’re told in the scriptures is that in the beginning, God created. That’s what God does, because that’s Who God is. (And because we’re created in God’s image, that’s also an extremely strong human drive, and I’m not talking just about procreation, but also creation in terms of the arts, sciences, industry and so on.) We’re also told unequivocally and unqualifiedly that God is love — and it seems to me that if God’s essence is love and if what God does is create, it follows that what God would do is to create creatures that can love and be loved.
    I don’t think it’s necessary to believe in creation ex nihilo to come to the same conclusion as you have; I’m not sure what that really has to do with it. Either way, it was God’s choice to have children and to offer us the type of life that He has. And just as parents find great pleasure in seeing their children grow, learn and have joy, so does God — even with, as you point out, the pain involved in that.
    (And while I think TYD’s question is an interesting one, I think it’s irrelevant to the main point of the original post. Just my opinion.)
  6. Dear David (and Eric),
    I was being cute with Jack, given her last post about being a theologian. It was entirely friendly.
    I asked the (two) question(s) I did because it is pertinent to a (tangential) topic alluded to in the post that I am interested in possibly discussing. Additionally, I am just plain curious as to Jack’s personal views on these oft-debated issues among evangelicals.
    In other words, whether you (or I) believe the bible (or parts of it) to be historically or scientifically reliable–or indeed whether you (or I) believe the categories of science and/or history can even apply to the bible, or certain sections of it–is irrelevant to Jack’s own personal views on the matter, or those of many conservative evangelicals who frequently do assert both the historical and scientific accuracy or validity of the biblical texts (although I, of course, appreciate hearing your opinions David).
    Best wishes,
    TYD
  7. Cute is OK. At the risk of contributing to a threadjack … I pretty much agree with what D.C. said. There’s far more allegory and parable in the first three chapters of Genesis than there is history or science.
  8. I’d much rather hear an answer like this (and the attendant metaphor/comparison) than the glory one. Although, as my parents say, “you have to do well in school so we can post newspaper clippings and magazine articles of you guys in our cubicles.” So I guess even on earth, we live to glorify our parents hehe.
  9. Well said, Jack. Lately I’ve been reading Miroslav Volf’s book Free of Charge: Giving and Forgiving in a Culture Stripped of Grace, and I think he eloquently rehabilitated the ‘to glorify God’ thing to a great extent: “[W]e don’t have to give up on the idea that God seeks God’s own glory. We just need to say that God’s glory, which is God’s very being, is God’s love, the creative love that wants to confer good upon the beloved. Now the problem of a self-seeking God has disappeared, and the divinity of God’s love is vindicated. In seeking God’s own glory, God merely insists on being toward human beings the God who gives” (39).
  10. Thanks everyone who liked the post.
    #2 TYD ~ While I agree that your question may be somewhat tangential to the post, I’ll bite. I’ve long declared myself to be an agnostic on protology and how to interpret the Genesis creation accounts where science is concerned (no really, see my IAQ), but I know enough to know that I fall somewhere between progressive creationism and theistic evolution on the Creation-Evolution Spectrum. I don’t really know all of the ins and outs of the questions of science and the text, other than knowing that the question of how death plays into creation is significant, as well as the question of how humankind can be said to be from dust and return to dust if we’re really from primate ancestors.
    And yes, I knew you were being friendly with the “theologian” label. :)
    #3 David ~ Are John Walton’s comments on this online anywhere?
    #5 Eric ~ I don’t think creation ex nihilo was necessary to the answer I gave here, but I mentioned it because I figured it could have significant implications for the discussion just the same.
    I didn’t intend for this to become an LDS-Evangelical interfaith discussion, but I suppose it’s inevitable with my readership—no complaints! I love you guys—so let me ask: how would Mormons answer the opening question? Why did God create us?
    #8 Andrew ~ So I guess even on earth, we live to glorify our parents hehe.
    Heh. I didn’t find a way to work it into my post, but I did think about this and I do think this is true, that children bring their parents glory. I even love things about Harley that she can’t help, like the fact that she’s so freakin’ tall for her age. I love that people can see me when they see her in that regard, at least.
    #9 JB ~ Thanks for posting that. It’s something to think about, and it is an interesting way of trying to reconcile and redeem the “to glorify God” answer with this sort of an answer.
  11. I liked the post and thought it basically summarized what I would have asked for in an LDS view minus ex nihilo. I think the idea link between the capacity to love others and the possession of glory is an important point. When we love others we want them to enjoy all the good that it is possible to enjoy. God has as it were a total monopoly on the ways and means for good to come to people and wants everyone else to become participants with good to as great of an extent as they are willing and so he provides the means for that to happen. Being a provider to His children and seeking to promote their good seems to me an intrinsically glorious sort of thing to do because of its pure goodness.
  12. The main book he wrote on the subject is called “The Lost World of Genesis One.” Another more general book he wrote on the thought world of the ancient near east in general (which also touches on this) is called “Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament,” which I have read. He also covers a lot of the same ground in the Genesis chapter for the “Zondervan Illustrated Bible Background Commentary,” which I have also read.
  13. Ms. Jack said:
    I didn’t intend for this to become an LDS-Evangelical interfaith discussion, but I suppose it’s inevitable with my readership—no complaints! I love you guys—so let me ask: how would Mormons answer the opening question? Why did God create us?
    As to what a typical Mormon would say, I honestly don’t know. My answer (as explained above) is that it has to do with love and creativity being inherent characteristics of God.
    For what it’s worth, I’ve heard the question of the post asked (and answered, at least partially) in a Protestant context many times, but I don’t remember ever hearing the question coming up in an LDS context. Perhaps, because of our anthropomorphic view of God and our view that all people are in a spiritual sense literally children of God, the idea of a Heavenly Mother and Heavenly Father having children would seem to be almost tautological, or at least inevitable. Or maybe we’re just not as prone to ask such questions as much as Protestants are. Or maybe it gets back to that ex nihilo thing, if indeed the essence of “intelligence” (whatever that is) is co-eternal with God.
    Or maybe I wasn’t listening when the question has been asked.
  14. I didn’t intend for this to become an LDS-Evangelical interfaith discussion, but I suppose it’s inevitable with my readership—no complaints! I love you guys—so let me ask: how would Mormons answer the opening question? Why did God create us?
    Moses 1:39: For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal elife of man.
  16. Granted, you can ask “why is that his work and glory?” or “to what end does he need glory?” But as every parent of toddlers knows, you can ask recursive “why” questions about anything.
  17. “Granted, you can ask “why is that his work and glory?” or “to what end does he need glory?” But as every parent of toddlers knows, you can ask recursive “why” questions about anything.”
    And my final answer to said toddlers winds up being, “Because God made it that way! If you have a problem with it, go pray in your room and ask Him!”
    :D
  19. Yeah, I don’t think Mosiah 1:39 really answers the question. I would ask, why is that God’s work and his glory?
    I guess the impression I’ve always gotten is that in Mormon theology, God is sort of obligated to create. Can he really say “no” if there are a bunch of intelligences waiting in the wings for their turn to progress? That doesn’t mean that he does not love us and take pleasure in us, but it does add another dimension to the issue.
    Feel free to correct me if I’m understanding wrong though.
  21. And my final answer to said toddlers winds up being, “Because God made it that way! If you have a problem with it, go pray in your room and ask Him!”
    She’s not kidding. She does this.
    Yeah, I don’t think Mosiah 1:39 really answers the question. I would ask, why is that God’s work and his glory?
    Why does God love us? Why is the thought of our existence pleasing to him? Why does living out our purpose and loving God back bring glory to him? Why does God want glory? Why does he choose to get glory in this particular way?
    Your answer is just as unsatisfying as any answer to a “why” question. I suspect you are dissatisfied with the Mormon answer (Moses 1:39) more because it is not the answer you would give than anything else.
  22. I suspect you are dissatisfied with the Mormon answer (Moses 1:39) more because it is not the answer you would give than anything else.
    Uh, no. I’m pretty sure that when I say I’m not satisfied with the answer, it’s because I genuinely feel that it does not answer the question.
    If people really want to probe the answer to my question further, they’re free to ask.
  23. And while I realize that anyone can pick anyone else’s answer apart with “whys,” my own husband’s answer to my question is that our eternal progression is necessary in order for God to progress further. He has a rather fascinating explanation about how God’s power derives from sealings (I can’t do it justice right now).
    So I know that there is room to probe the question further and don’t feel like I’m asking just to be difficult.
  24. I agree that Mosiah 1:39 doesn’t answer the question. I’d be interested to hear Paul’s answer if at some time you can do it justice.
  25. Jack,
    I think that you are correct. Examining the question, “why did God create us?” I am not sure that “to glorify God” was meant to be the answer to the question. As you pointed out it is wholly unsatisfactory to someone who does not believe. I understand that this may seem to be an almost heretical statement coming from a confessional Presbyterian, especially when the opening question and answer to our shorter catechism reads:
    What is the chief end of man?
    Man’s chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever.
    I think what is missed by many, when they look to the catechism to answer the question “why did God create us?” (myself included) is that the Westminster divines presupposed the righteous and holy intent of God in His creation and were more concerned with what a believes response to the work of God in creation should be.
  26. So I know that there is room to probe the question further and don’t feel like I’m asking just to be difficult.
    I’m afraid you misunderstand me: I was not accusing you of intentionally rejecting the answer just because it’s not the answer you want. I am sure that you genuinely feel that it does not the answer the question. I am talking about what I think is the reason you feel that way.
    If there’s an infinite well of why with any why-question (and there is), then some other factor besides hitting the bottom of the well is going to decide at what point you find an answer satisfying and do not feel the need to keep pressing it.
    And I think anyone, not just you, is going to feel more satisfied with an answer that they can assimilate (i.e. accept without adjusting your existing schema:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schema_(psychology) ) than they will with an answer they have to accomodate (i.e. only be able to accept by adjusting their schema).
    I think most people will find the answer to a “why” question unsatisfying and will want to keep on asking until they hit an answer that they can assimilate.
  27. I agree with Jack’s premise that God created us out of love and because He wanted to do so. I agree with Eric’s premise that God is a Creator and that He is also a God of love, and therefore, creating beings that can love and be loved just seems to make sense. And I agree that most Mormons would simply quote Moses 1:39 (not Mosiah 1:39, which doesn’t exist in our current translation) as a quick answer.
    I think the follow up question to the standard Mormon response is, “Okay, why is it His work and His glory?” The real question, though, is why must God have work? Latter-day Saints believe work (the act of doing) is an eternal principle. I think that most Christians would agree. (“An idle mind is the Devil’s workshop” is an adage that has been around for quite some time.)
    So, as a Latter-day Saint, I believe that God must have a work to do, because that is just a part of being. If we are not doing, we are not being, and if we are being, we simply are not. So we will always be doing something. And for God, that something is creating children who will be able to follow His path, and then trying to guide them along that path.
  28. “God created us because he loves us” doesn’t seem precise enough, because if he created us out of nothing then he didn’t love us prior to our creation.
    I think the general point is perhaps the most understandable reason we can posit as to why God created us, i.e. that its nice to have kids and make stuff, God is like us on that point so we can understand where he is coming from.
    Of course I think all of these discussions have to end with the point that God’s reasons are often impenetrable to us. I think this point can be understood with the same sort of analogy. . . Our kids won’t really understand why we had them until they are old enough to understand that they will be able to pro-create.
  29. Jared, I think that observation runs into a problem.
    Because, strictly speaking, we weren’t necessarily created out of “nothing” under the traditional Christian view. You can view us as having been created out of the love of God for instance.
    Which I certainly wouldn’t call “nothing.”
  30. The real question, though, is why must God have work? Latter-day Saints believe work (the act of doing) is an eternal principle.
    That’s a total non-answer. A cop-out. You could use it for anything. You could have answered “Okay, why is it His work and His glory?” with “because it is an eternal principle.” You could have answered “why did God create us?” with “eternal principle.”
    It’s the Mormon theology equivalent of “a wizard did it.”
    So, as a Latter-day Saint, I believe that God must have a work to do, because that is just a part of being.
    Why is that a part of his being?
    If we are not doing, we are not being, and if we are being, we simply are not.
    This is nowhere near self-evident (which it would have to be for it to be a sufficiently fiundamental principle to serve as a satisfactory end to the line of question). I’m pretty sure a Buddhist, for example, would reject it out of hand.
    So we will always be doing something. And for God, that something is creating children who will be able to follow His path, and then trying to guide them along that path.
    This doesn;t answer the question at all, though. Look at what you are saying:
    1. To exist is to do something.
    2. To do nothing is to not exist.
    3. We will always exist.
    4. Therefore we will always be doing something.
    5. God exists.
    6. Therefore God is doing something.
    7. The “something” that God is doing is “creating children who will be able to follow His path, and then trying to guide them along that path.”
    That’s not an answer at all. Even given 1-3 and 5, only 4 and 6 follow. 7 does not follow at all. God could be doing anything.
    Even given “God must have work” (which does not follow from anything you’ve said, unless you want to claim that all “doing” is “work,” which is absurd), there’s still no particular reason why “creating children who will be able to follow His path, and then trying to guide them along that path” should be his work instead of any other conceivable work.
    Okay, God must work. Why is this his work?
  32. Right, I understand that’s probably what Alex means. However, I still maintain that it’s far from self-evident (ask a Zen Buddhist), which means you can just keep asking why? Why is work required for full actualization? Why does God need to do anything to be actualized?
  33. Because if he wasn’t doing anything, he would be – by definition – less noticeable, less involved, less relevant.
  35. Problem with this conversation is that the topic of “what is perfection?” is far more complex than it initially appears to most people.
    Augustine and Aquinas defined perfection a certain way based on certain neo-Platonist assumptions that modern Catholics and Protestants often find to be entirely intuitive and logical.
    Until you start questioning the premises that is – at which point the whole thing starts looking a lot more shaky.
    Yes, Kullervo, I’m avoiding your question. So sue me.
  37. Honestly, kullervo, this is one of those times where I am totally comfortable with saying you are right: my answer is not totally satisfactory along many lines. My answer is just a pathetic attempt at explaining why I think God does what He does. But, seeing as I am not God, I cannot give a 100% satisfactory answer. I’m sure it will be one of those things that I’ll ask when I get a chance.
  38. Please understand, I’m not picking on you personally; I’m trying to illustrate a point. You can keep asking why forever, and I think people stop when they get to a layer of “why” that they can assimilate, i.e. something that jives with what they already know/believe/understand. And I think people do this most of the time without being consciously aware that it’s what they’re doing. So the
    Thus, Mormons and Evangelicals may very well not be satisfied by each others’ answers. But it’s not because the answers are inherently dissatisfying–neiother side has boiled it down to some kind of fundamental first principle (that might not even exist). But the answer is satisfying or not beased on how it fits in the person’s schema/belief-framework.
  39. Even back when I participated in evangelical/pentecostal churches, their answers to this question seemed circular.
    Granted, I didn’t know the LDS answers to the question (ie, what’s the purpose of life/creation?) back in those days, and later on I ended up embracing the LDS story almost immediately after finding it. But, trying my best to put my mind back in my previous mind-set, I have to give props to the LDS answers on “Why creation?” They just make more common sense and seem more logical; they go farther down a line of reasoning before the “why’s” appear to be cyclical, or before “just because” comes into play.
    My take on Mormon meta-physics is that it fits in better with the concepts of higher dimensions (beyond our 3d space and linear time) that I’ve browsed from theoretical physicists such as Stephen Hawking, about such things as string theory, and a bigger “multi-verse” which contains multiple universes.
    I don’t have time to go quote invidivual passages from TPJS (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith), but certain gems from there and from the LDS Doctrine and Covenants just seem to gell so much better with theoretical space/time physics than do evangelical or other mainstream protestant cosmologies and “big pictures.”
  40. Seth,
    The point is that God actually can’t love something that doesn’t exist yet, if you are using the language in a standard way. It doesn’t matter if we were created from nothing or something, he could have made us out of clay, or recycled aluminum but until we are formed, he can’t love US.
    On the fundamental Why of creation:
    Ultimately the mystery card has to be played, the question for theology is what is the purpose and point of the explanation you are giving?
  43. Granted, I didn’t know the LDS answers to the question (ie, what’s the purpose of life/creation?) back in those days, and later on I ended up embracing the LDS story almost immediately after finding it. But, trying my best to put my mind back in my previous mind-set, I have to give props to the LDS answers on “Why creation?” They just make more common sense and seem more logical; they go farther down a line of reasoning before the “why’s” appear to be cyclical, or before “just because” comes into play.
    My take on Mormon meta-physics is that it fits in better with the concepts of higher dimensions (beyond our 3d space and linear time) that I’ve browsed from theoretical physicists such as Stephen Hawking, about such things as string theory, and a bigger “multi-verse” which contains multiple universes.
    I don’t have time to go quote invidivual passages from TPJS (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith), but certain gems from there and from the LDS Doctrine and Covenants just seem to gell so much better with theoretical space/time physics than do evangelical or other mainstream protestant cosmologies and “big pictures.”
    Classic lame Mormon self-congratulation.
  44. Kullervo,
    Were you going to present a better way of looking at God?
    Or are you just going to continue to lob stink bombs at the Evangelical-Mormon BBQ, while giggling unpleasantly?
    Tearing down is easy.
    Being constructive is a little more difficult.
    At present, all you are coming off as is a crank who is critical of everyone else’s beliefs, but steadfastly refuses to be pinned down on any of his own.
    Whatever the misguided opinions of people posting here – at least THEY are trying. Which is more than I can say for your position here. Until you actually have something constructive to offer, don’t expect to be taken that seriously.
  45. Kullervo,
    Were you going to present a better way of looking at God?
    Or are you just going to continue to lob stink bombs at the Evangelical-Mormon BBQ, while giggling unpleasantly?
    Tearing down is easy.
    Being constructive is a little more difficult.
    At present, all you are coming off as is a crank who is critical of everyone else’s beliefs, but steadfastly refuses to be pinned down on any of his own.
    Whatever the misguided opinions of people posting here – at least THEY are trying. Which is more than I can say for your position here. Until you actually have something constructive to offer, don’t expect to be taken that seriously.
    Well, as I am neither Evangelical nor Mormon and indeed not a Christian at all, this is not really an appropriate venue for me to talk about my own conceptions of God. It also doesn’t really make sense for me to attempt to try to “be constructive.” Trying to correct or reform your understanding of a monotheist Christian God would be a non-sequitur. Furthermore, my personal religious beliefs are so far afield than anything I could genuinely offer would be rejected out of hand (and contrary to your assertions, I do quite a bit of work on my own blog to try to carefully articulate what my beliefs are; I can’t help you if you simply don’t like the fact that they are perpetually under construction).
    Nevertheless, I feel like I can contribute meaningfully to the discussion. At the very least, I can offer a unique persective. Bat arguments and unsound ideas should be torn down (no matter who makes them, Evangelical, Mormon, or Pagan), and this is precisely the kind of discussion forum where criticism is appropriate.
    Don;t want me to point out the holes in your reasoning? Use better reasoning. Don’t like it when I accuse you of throwing meaningless rhetoric around? Don’t throw meaningless rhetoric around.
    Go back and look at what I have been saying in this thread. I’m not actually saying that there’s something wrong with Jack’s answer or anyone else’s answer. I’m talking about why Jack’s answer satisfies her but might not satisfy someone else, and vice versa.
  46. Seth, with regards to, “Or are you just going to continue to lob stink bombs at the Evangelical-Mormon BBQ, while giggling unpleasantly?”, I’ll have you know that the giggles are actually quite pleasant. :)
    Here’s my take on the original question:
    Why does it matter why God created us? We can’t ever really know for sure, right? But with faith in Jesus Christ, we have a general sense of what we should be doing with our created lives. And Mormons have an even better sense of what they should be doing, because that’s clearly laid out in a relatively easy to follow plan.
    So, why did God create us? Who cares?! He did! HOORAY!!
    Andrew S.: “So, that’s the reason why God doesn’t answer my prayers…katyjane keeps foisting off toddlers on Him!”
    hee! Thanks for the chuckle.
  47. Very interesting post, Jack. I know you didn’t write it for Mormons, but I’ve got to admit, I’ve always hated how some Christians describe God as an egotistical narcissist who has an innate need to create beings that worship and obey them, and if they don’t, He burns them for eternity, even if He was the one who CHOSE them to not worship Him, and burn for eternity…
    And then there’s people like 
    this,     they really help me to understand how God is glorified.
    I’ll take your brand of Evangelical over this rot any day…
  48. Hales… Have you recently moved to east central Illinois? If you have, there is too much readership in this area (scary).
  49. Hales… Have you recently moved to east central Illinois? If you have, there is too much readership in this area (scary).
    Seriously, it’s completely out of control.
  50. psychochemiker,
    After following both of these posts, I see a distinct similarity with your comment and Richard’s. Both of you appear disposed to commenting about your own caricatures of another belief system rather than engaging with the best presentations of their theology.
  51. Um Gundek,
    I think you read me wrong. I’m saying that I reject that comical caricature and prefer to learn about the more reasonable type. The problem is, there’s so much more of the unreasonable stuff out there, that type of “reasoning” is all too comical in most Evangelicial circles, hence Jack’s ability to even write about it. If it were an Evangelical “fringe doctrine” there probably wouldn’t even be a post. I’m not judging all of Evangelicism by that bad caricature, only the majority of Evangelicals who believe it. Kopische?
  52. Kopische?
    Not really. If I understand your explanation you are presenting a caricature of a serious theological understanding of the purpose of creation and the glory of God (confessed by Orthodoxy, Roman Catholic, and confessional Protestants), you then ascribe belief in this caricature to the majority of evangelicalism and this is to be taken as reasonable?
    I can’t speak for all of the Christians in the world but something tells me that there are very few who say, “I believe that God is a egotistical narcissist…” I am having difficulty understanding what the point is for rejecting you own caricature.
Categories:

Related Post:



0 коментарі:

Post a Comment

ClobberBlog | Mormonism, Evangelical Christianity